LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME Archives

BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME  July 2014

BIBFRAME July 2014

Subject:

Re: BibFrame and Linked Data: Identifiers

From:

"Ford, Kevin" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 11 Jul 2014 13:19:24 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

Hola Rob,

Let me begin by commenting on this:

> And apologies for the lack of clarity that required the
> re-re-reading!
-- No apologies needed. It’s a complex subject and my re-reading was an effort to understand every nuance.

Now, something you wrote in this most recent response made me realize that perhaps there are two views of the "identifier" property that require some form of reconciliation or clarification.

It was this line:

> If bf:uri did not assert some degree of equivalence, then it shouldn't
> be a subproperty of bf:identifier,

This would suggest that you believe "bf:identifier" to assert some degree of equivalence. I'm not sure that is how "bf:identifier" has been viewed, at least by us. And I just said "us" (meaning NDMSO staff) but maybe it's just "me" and I hope others step in to set the record straight.

Let me begin by saying that if you understand bf:identifier as essentially meaning "equivalentResource" or "owl:sameAs" or something along those lines, then I totally understand your fear of someone using the same URI for the bf:Identifer /and/ the bf:Instance. I'd not picked up on that earlier, and it might explain why I remain somewhat mystified as to why someone would use the same URI for the bf:Identifer /and/ the bf:Instance and why /you/ believe it to be inevitable. (Let me also say that if I am wrong about that assumption, then take the remaining content of this email with a grain of salt.)

But I don’t think /we've/ imbued the bf:identifier property with those semantics, at least not intentionally. And, for the record, nothing here is meant to suggest "we're right and you're wrong" (or vice-versa); I'm hoping we've hit on the point of disagreement or miscommunication and, if so, figure out where to go from here.

We've thought of the bf:identifier->bf:Identifier construct more as a way to record and capture details about an "identifier" itself more than a relationship that equates two like things. Our assumption presented another way: bf:Identifier represents an identifier, not the Thing the identifier identifies. (And that is why I've had a hard time seeing the potential identifier collision - to me they represent two distinct things.)

At this point, I'm inclined to simply ask for comment on the above, but allow me to suggest how this issue might be resolved (on the assumption the above accurately captures the misunderstanding/miscommunication).

Clearly the definitions of bf:identifier and bf:Identifier need to be reviewed and, if necessary, modified to reflect the actual intent. Bf:uri (and a whole bunch of other identifiers, such as those that can be used with URIs) need to move out from being sub-properties of bf:identifier so that they can be imbued with some kind of equivalency semantics. If this sounds like a reasonable first step, then I simply see this as just one of the reasons identifiers in BIbframe need some TLC.

I do want to conclude by drawing attention to the real use case where there are identifiers about which more information must, should, or could be captured. These data points might include who assigned/created the identifier, the date of its creation, whether it has been cancelled, etc. This use case (real for BIbframe, and already in good evidence in MARC) can also be seen here [1].

Yours,
Kevin


[1] http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Identifier





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ford, Kevin
> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 12:00 PM
> To: Ford, Kevin
> Subject: RE: [BIBFRAME] BibFrame and Linked Data: Identifiers
>
>
>
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Sanderson
> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 5:29 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] BibFrame and Linked Data: Identifiers
>
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Ford, Kevin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > An example in the documentation of when this isn't the case is in
> > bf:uri (  http://bibframe.org/vocab/uri.html ) where there is a real
> > resource as the object of the bf:uri predicate.
> > And thus that it could have properties like identifierQualifier,
> > identifierAssigner and so forth.  Maybe that's the intent, but it
> > doesn't really seem that way?
> I think this is a mistake.  So, actually, thanks for bringing that to our attention.
>
> Okay, that was one of the pieces of evidence that I was basing my opinion on,
> so please bear that in mind!
>
>
> > Now consider:
> >   _:LotR a bf:Instance ;
> >       bf:uri <http://example.com/identifiers/book1> .
> >   <http://example.com/identifiers/book1> a bf:Identifier ;
> >       bf:identifierValue "some string identifier here" .
> > Now it becomes very odd.
> Oh, yes, it is extremely odd.  The more so because every time I look at that
> example I think to myself, "who in their right mind would do that?"  :)
>
> Heh :)  Well, yes, I hope that no one would do that, but following automated
> rules for the skolemization of blank nodes, systems might do it unwittingly...
> such as the examples on the site actually do today.
>
> To pick one at random, and dropping the namespace declarations:
>
>   <bf:Identifier rdf:about="http://bibframe.org/resources/sample-
> bl/007177759identifier40">
>     <bf:identifierScheme>issn</bf:identifierScheme>
>     <bf:identifierValue>1471-2989</bf:identifierValue>
>     <bf:identifierAssigner>02</bf:identifierAssigner>
>   </bf:Identifier>
>
> And no, I'm not trying to say that the examples were created by people not
> in their right mind :D Just that it's a pretty easy trap to fall into.
>
>   Actually, my confusion comes a little later when the URI for the bf:Identifier
> is suddenly the same as that for the bf:Instance. Please don't misunderstand,
> I comprehend your overall point, but I remain confused as to why anyone
> would use the URI of an Instance as the URI for a bf:Identifier.  It seems like
> that individual is just asking for trouble.
>
> Yes. Indeed! And hence bf:uri seems like an invitation to trouble that could
> be gainfully avoided.
>
>
> Anyways, in the end....
> > The solution (as above) is just to use bf:Identifier, always as a
> > blank node, for only identifiers that are not themselves URIs.
> I think I can sign on to this, but I'm not confident that this rule resolves this
> particular identifier issue as I see it.  And so begins the excursion...
> After reading, and re-reading, and re-reading your email and document,
>
> Thank you for the time! And apologies for the lack of clarity that required the
> re-re-reading!
>
> I can't help but think the problem is the bf:uri property itself. It's a property,
> so it should relate two things, yet I do not believe the right semantics are
> being captured in this case.  I agree, if you have a URI, you have a URI.  It
> identifies something already.  It's the "what" that I do not think is being
> addressed.  Is the URI an identifier for the current resource?
>
> That was my interpretation, given the range of bf:Identifier.
>
>
> That is, is it about same-ness (some form of equivalency or owl:sameAs
> relationship)?  Or, given a different context, the thing you have might be a
> URI but the appropriate relationship is something else altogether.  Of course,
> you'd want to use a property that captures the nature of the relationship
> versus the rather non-descriptive bf:uri.  To ask all of that another way, when
> does one use bf:uri?
>
> Right. If bf:uri did not assert some degree of equivalence, then it shouldn't
> be a subproperty of bf:identifier, described as "Number or code that
> uniquely identifies an entity."  (sic, I guess, as the property isn't a number of
> code, that's the property's range, but I needlessly digress)
>
> Instead it could be a subproperty of bf:relatedTo ... but I have no idea how it
> would be any different to relatedTo.
> And so...
>
> Does this
>  _:LotR a bf:Instance ;
>      bf:uri <http://example.com/identifiers/book1> .
> mean this?
>  _:LotR a bf:Instance ;
>      bf:equivalentInstance <http://example.com/identifiers/book1> .
>
> I think so?
>
> (I might have made up the bf property for demonstration purposes, but you
> get the idea.)  If so, then would it not be better to use bf:equivalentInstance,
> which is far more explanatory, than bf:uri?  Or is knowing the type of
> identifier more important?  (Really, those are not rhetorical questions.)
>
> I think that bf:equivalent, ore:similarTo, owl:sameAs or other appropriate
> relationship, is the way to go.
> And, given that the Identifier has identifierScheme, the type of identifier can
> be found out from there.
> Currently it's quite possible to say the meaningless:
>
>   _:instance bf:coden _:doi .
>   _:doi identifierScheme "doi" .
>
> Now what? Is it a DOI or a coden?
>
> bf:hdl (http://bibframe.org/vocab/hdl) is another one that I find similarly
> lacking in strong semantics.  Add bf:urn to that as well.
>
> Yup. Going though the subproperties of identifier with a fine toothed comb
> would be instructive, I think!
>
> This last case is interesting because a URN is a URI.  So, to be clear, would
> bf:urn fall under the rule your proposed above?  (Your document would
> suggest as much, which is all fine by the way I'm just looking for clarification.)
>
> As a URN is a URI then yes, it shouldn't be used with Identifier.
>
>
> Does this capture the semantics better
> _:LotR a bf:Instance ;
>     bf:doi _:bnode1
> _:bnode1 a bf:Identifier
>    bf:identifierValue "10.1000/182"
>    bf:identifierAssigner <http://example.org/1>
>
> than this
>
> _:LotR a bf:Instance ;
>     bf:identifier _:bnode1
> _:bnode1 a bf:Identifier
>    bf:identifierType <http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/identifiers/doi>
>    bf:identifierValue "10.1000/182"
>    bf:identifierAssigner <http://example.org/1> ?
>
>
> I prefer the second as it associates properties of the identifier with the
> Identifier resource, namely its DOI-ness, rather than relying on the
> relationship between that particular Instance and the Identifier.  As above,
> what if there's a mismatch? Or what if another Instance has a relationship to
> that Identifier, like cites or references?
> [Yes, it should cite the Work, not the Identifier, but I hope you see the point]
>
>
> Perhaps it makes little difference and I'm splitting hairs.
>
> No, I think it does make a big difference.
>
>
> That said, one of the points you raised in the document was how, for
> example, an ISSN has a formal URN form and therefore could be
> represented as a URI (did not know that, so thanks).  Taking advantage of
> such a mechanism, I could see a scenario where the property bf:issn is
> defined as something like "ISSN for current resource in URN form" and
> reserved solely to allow something like this:
>
> _:I1 a bf:Instance ;
>     bf:issn <urn:ISSN:1560-1560> .
>
> Yup, +1.  And bf:issn then isn't a subproperty of bf:identifier.
> Otherwise it could be simplified to:
>
>     <urn:ISSN:1560-1560> a bf:Instance .
>
> modulo the trust issue discussed in the Authorities thread.
>
> while still allowing this:
>
> _:I1 a bf:Instance ;
>     bf:identifier _:bnode1
>
> _:bnode1 a bf:Identifier
>    bf:identifierType <http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/identifiers/issn>
>    bf:identifierValue "1560-1560"
>    bf:identifierAssigner <http://example.org/issn/agency>
>
> Agreed.  I see the point of Identifier for non URIs (including URN and URL as
> subsets of URI)
>
>
> The immediately preceding two examples would establish a model whereby
> "bf:identifier" and "bf:Identifier" are used when capturing information about
> other, string-based identifiers while reserving the properties (bf:issn,
> bf:isbn10, etc) exclusively for URI-ified identifiers.  This aligns, I believe, more
> or less with your rule; I'm wondering if there is a way to refine when select
> properties are used and when they are not (providing there is merit to that
> idea).  I'm also looking at how they are defined.  Does that make sense?  Do
> you foresee issues with or benefits of allowing for this type of duplication?
>
> Nope, other than the semantics of bf:issn in terms of the relationship
> between the subject and object.  If it's owl:sameAs, then the ISSN could be
> (again modulo the trust issue) the identifier for the Instance directly, rather
> than using a blank node and saying it's the same as a URI.
>
> OK, I feel I rambled on a bit; I hope it was clear.
>
> It is, thank you!
>
> All of it is to basically say that I think you raise a good point, but that I am
> trying to flesh it out some.  Thanks for taking the time to write it all down.
>
> And for you to read and reply in such a considered fashion :)
>
> Rob

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
July 2011
June 2011

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager